NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed May 06, 2015 8:29 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 138, 139, 140, 141, 142
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:01 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:27 pm
Posts: 36
Some believe it will be the B12 that opens for extracting.
Some believe it will be the ACC.
What if it is only one of them?
Would the other four all move on one and forget about the other?
It would be odd for both to open at the same time with GoR stuff..
The one that holds out gains in security.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:21 am 
Online
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1268
I'm not sold on the idea of five power conferences consolidating into four. We had six only until a year or two ago, and there seems to be some logistical issues keeping further expansion from happening, beyond what legally/contractually keeps some of these things in place. I think the more likely thing is having five majors, but the fifth, likely the remnants of the Big XII, merges with various MWC, AAC, and independent programs. A power-four structure, dwarf fifth.

Any dissolution will probably see ALL remaining power conferences taking a program or two (or more).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2015 11:29 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1629
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
The Big Ten and SEC are the ones to watch on this. That they aren't talking about this subject as freely as others, it's not coincidental or because they don't support it. With a playoff so small, the "access game" (if the CCGs are that, even if just implied) needs to produce the two best teams, and the divisional split doesn't necessarily produce it. The SEC West, the Big Ten East...yeah, you better believe they care. They just can't...talk garbage about their conference-mates who might not line up well against others.


That Big Ten/SEC relationship is an odd duck. For two conferences that share a long and distinct border and parallel each other in many ways athletically, they project they are headed in different directions on a number of issues. I don't think that's really the case on the major issues, and both need each other to keep doing what has been proven to be so successful financially. I believe the Big Ten looks at the SEC as their top competitor, and vise versa, but they were very collaborative on the P5 movement among other changes. As to the PAC12, the Big Ten sees and tries to further cultivate that conference as their big ally, with the B1G seeming to be more committed to that relationship than the PAC12.

On the CCG change issue pushed by the ACC and B12, the PAC12's Scott recent comments about it fell well short of any endorsement. The SEC has publicly remained silent on the issue, though B12 supporters on twitter and such claim they have the support. There's no reason that the SEC and B1G would be on different pages about this unless some super IOUs' were strangely involved. I believe it was Scott that noted that he has not seen the proposal. I recently learned that the proposal has not even been "written up" to present to anyone, and that it is the ACC (Swofford) who will develop the plan on paper for submission to the body or some committee first. If it is like any plan in academia, those with reservations will ponder it, change language, make amendments, etc. And that's even if they support some part of it. And rather than vote against it if opposed; opposition, with enough votes, can simply table it indefinitely. While the umbrella topic is the deregulation of CCGs', what the ACC is seeking to apply, and what the confused and divided B12 is trying to do, are not identical.

Delany seems to like to take these little jabs at the SEC. He recently suggested the old B12's CCG upsets were to the benefit of the SEC. Maybe that was intended as added justification for OSU's playoff selection last year. Also, in a B1G discussion about satellite camps, he dissed the SEC about over-signing, gray-shirting, and flipping recruits. It was pointed out though, Urban Meyer was very gifted at using these techniques. And with James Franklin and now, Jim Harbaugh, in the B1G, clever strategies for advantages are not going to be overlooked.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... iscussion/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2015 12:34 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2761
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Delany is talking about the rule change for a CCG http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... e-football

Anyone that assumed the Big Ten would someday split into pods and expand to 20 schools better hope Delany is not around. Apparently the commissioner of the Big Ten does not see super conferences becoming a reality any time soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2015 2:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1629
sec03 wrote:

To clarify:

Delany recently suggested the old B12's CCG upsets were to the benefit of the SEC.


To clarify (article w/ quote was also posted in B12 thread 4/30/15):

"Bob's group has handled it well," Delany said. "They've got some decisions that they'll have to make about the 13th game. We had decisions for many years. We had 11 members and didn't have a champ game. For the Big 12, they had games going back in history when that championship game hurt them and it really helped the SEC. ... It cuts both ways. You're always going to have clusters of teams that could make an argument."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... nship-game

The point: Such happening would have favored the other top two ranked teams in the BCS top three of which a B12 team, among them, loses on the conference championship weekend. It's not exclusionary to one conference unless that conference is clearly dominant beforehand and after such games. The 'cutting both ways' is the situation last year of which Ohio State benefited. Yet, Delany referenced the SEC by being 'really helped', for a prior period, instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2015 2:39 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 441
lash wrote:
Anyone that assumed the Big Ten would someday split into pods and expand to 20 schools better hope Delany is not around. Apparently the commissioner of the Big Ten does not see super conferences becoming a reality any time soon.

The B1G is already a super-conference unless that is to be defined as part of a P4 body instead of the P5. And that could suit Delany just dandy. He's not going to want a Louisville, but if UVA and UNC, and maybe a couple of select others, told Delany they want to join the B1G and there was a clear path to do so, he would absorb them ASAP. Delany took Rutgers and went to a lot of effort to financially lure Maryland from the ACC. There's no evidence he would not go further for the preferred/available situations, and to state otherwise would be a contradiction of prior intent. 16 is not unreasonable to think he would go there; 20 and pods, agree, the B1G is not going for that.

It sounds like Strickland, the AD of Mississippi State , is the one concerned about the large number of 14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2015 3:10 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2761
Location: Phoenix Arizona
louisvillecard01 wrote:
lash wrote:
Anyone that assumed the Big Ten would someday split into pods and expand to 20 schools better hope Delany is not around. Apparently the commissioner of the Big Ten does not see super conferences becoming a reality any time soon.

The B1G is already a super-conference unless that is to be defined as part of a P4 body instead of the P5. And that could suit Delany just dandy. He's not going to want a Louisville, but if UVA and UNC, and maybe a couple of select others, told Delany they want to join the B1G and there was a clear path to do so, he would absorb them ASAP. Delany took Rutgers and went to a lot of effort to financially lure Maryland from the ACC. There's no evidence he would not go further for the preferred/available situations, and to state otherwise would be a contradiction of prior intent. 16 is not unreasonable to think he would go there; 20 and pods, agree, the B1G is not going for that.

It sounds like Strickland, the AD of Mississippi State , is the one concerned about the large number of 14

louisvillecard01, I respectfully have to disagree with your comments. The Big Ten could have been at 16, 18 or 20 with the list of candidates when the league stopped at 12 with Nebraska. At that time any school outside of the SEC would have jumped on the Big Ten expansion wagon. Granted the league latter came back for Maryland and Rutgers, however, to me this was reaction to the ACC giving special status to Notre Dame which has a campus in pitching distance of the Big Ten headquarters.

I could see the Big Ten maybe going to 16 someday if the right two schools wanted to join such as Virginia or North Carolina, I believe that most guys including Delany understand when you get past 14 schools you are essentially two leagues in one.

The Big Ten would be the last power league to take the route of having four pods playing a semi final and final championship game. It is too much like a full blown playoff which the Big Ten and Pac 12 have resisted for years.

You would have to convince the western schools to improve expansion because an 8, 9, 10 east division would have Wisconsin never facing the Ohio State and Michigan's of the world again. You have basketball schools such as Indiana that is already filling the lower end of the bloated 14 league being pushed further to the bottom.

With all the concern of the Cable networks waiting on the latest ESPN/Verizon law suite, the fees being charged just to bundle a product such as the Big Ten Network could be on the bubble that burst in the not too distance future.

The Big Ten is smart enough to hold up on taking any more schools with all the uncertainties facing future cable fee charges with on line streaming of products and then having more mouths to feed.

I see the Big Ten holding up with 14 for the long term future.

This is not taking into account all the issues facing major leagues with autonomy and pay for play for players.

Everyone on this board wants more realignment with the five power leagues. Sorry just do not see this happening in the near to long term future of the next 20 years.

There are far too may variable for any league including the Big Ten to take financial risks they simple may not be able to recover from.

This is the reason the Big 12 will do anything to avoid taking on any more mouths to feed and it has nothing to do with lack of a conference network. Ditto ACC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2015 5:55 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:27 pm
Posts: 36
Why is the B12 getting the other conferences at odds over all this?
They want everyone else to treat the 13th game as irrelevant?
They want their 10 to equal 12 or 14 elsewhere?
I have read all those blogs and comments.
It looks like Texas with control of 4 cronies are at it again.
Notre Dame too. Same old.
The shame is everyone else puts up with it and often caves.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 138, 139, 140, 141, 142

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jlog3000, The Bishin Cutter and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group